[cc-licenses] derivatives and source
arne_bab at web.de
Thu May 3 02:45:23 EDT 2012
Am Sonntag, 22. April 2012, 11:34:44 schrieb Francesco Poli:
> We can survive with a PNG file to be modified, but that's not the
> preferred form in this case. Hence, in the case under consideration, we
> are talking about a secret-source image, which should be considered
> legally undistributable, if licensed under the GPL.
For many uses the PNG is the preferred form of modification, so this simply is
a gray issue with artistic works.
If you require all possible sources, you are quickly at the point where you
need multi-band recordings, and these cannot be shared efficiently because of
their size or format. It’s like requiring the odt files from someone who does
his code-review by sending the code around in open document files and letting
other people comment by scribbling onto the text.
But one of the answers on the Debian list is this one:
> If the authors can't regenerate some of them anymore they must see the ogg
files as the preferred source for modification themself. And this is usually
what also gets applied to graphic files: The rendered/flattened image is
argued to be the preferred source for modification.
That’s exacply the point.
Ich hab' nichts zu verbergen – hab ich gedacht:
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/attachments/20120503/7f45be16/attachment-0001.bin
More information about the cc-licenses